T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. With that understanding, I will not object.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Regular order.

Mr. GORTON. Regular order.

Mr. GORTON. The Senate is not convening until 1:15 at the direction of the majority leader.

Mr. GORTON. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GORTON. Regular order.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 1:15 p.m. on Tuesday, October 19. I further ask consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then immediately recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conferences to meet. I further ask consent that the mandatory quorums required under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene tomorrow at 1:15 p.m., and at 2:15 p.m. two cloture votes will occur with respect to amendments to the campaign finance bill. Following the vote or votes, the Senate may resume consideration of the campaign finance bill. However, debate on this legislation is coming to a close, and Senators should anticipate the consideration of the partial-birth abortion bill, the continuing resolution, and available appropriations conference reports during the remainder of this week's session of the Senate.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, when is it okay for a gun to be at school? I find it hard to think of an instance when it is. In fact, a few years ago Congress was so concerned about guns at school that it passed a law that required school districts to implement a zero tolerance policy for guns or lose their Federal funding. Schools must expel a student who brings a gun to school for a year. Three weeks ago a young man at Lakeside High School, a public school of 520 students in the Nine Mile Falls School District in eastern Washington, brought a handgun to school. Thankfully, school authorities were notified quickly and nobody was hurt. Students and parents were understandably upset that such an incident would happen at all, and assumed that the situation would be dealt with in accordance with the district's ``zero-tolerance'' policy for such matters. What happened was very different. I began receiving calls from students and parents who were concerned that this young man will now be allowed back at school after just 45 days. They were both confused and upset when they found out that Federal law supersedes local policies for addressing such incidents. So upset, in fact, that students at Lakeside High School have begun organizing a walkout. I have a flyer that has been circulated by students promoting a planned walkout on October 18. The students plan to drive to the district office and protest the return of the student. I ask unanimous consent the students' flyer be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in 1997, Congress created the Mark-to- Market program, which was designed to preserve the affordability of low-income rental housing and reduce the long-term costs to the Federal government. The program is designed to restructure the mortgages for HUD insured properties so that they can be supported by market based rents. Under the Mark-to-Market program, HUD enters into agreements with State and local housing finance agencies, as well as a limited number of private firms, called Participating Administrative Entities or PAEs. The PAEs underwrite and recommend the financial restructuring of these properties. Under the agreement, the PAEs determine rent levels, how much of a new mortgage the property can support with those rents, and how much of a second mortgage HUD will have to hold on the property in order to ensure that the restructuring is economically feasible. The program also allows the housing finance agencies to provide financing for the new first mortgage on the property, even though they have inside knowledge of how the agreement is negotiated and structured. However, the legislation creating the program recognizes that a conflict of interest can exists where the housing finance agency that is charged with restructuring the mortgage provides financing for the same property. In this situation, HUD is to establish guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest. Despite this provision, the legislation before us today requires the Secretary to approve financing by a HFA under the risk sharing program where the financing meets certain terms and conditions. Under this language, it is possible that the housing finance agency can gain an unfair advantage over other lenders who want to compete to provide financing. This could happen if the housing agency has the opportunity to review all submissions for financing and structure its own proposal so that no other lender can compete. In addition, property owners will have virtually no voice in determining who provides a mortgage on their property if they wish to stay in the program. It is the intent of this bill, in the interest of all parties, that all lenders be given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field in providing financing. To this end, HUD should exercise its authority under the conflict of interest requirement and undertake an independent review of the financing proposals. This could be accomplished, for example, by having the housing finance agency submit all lenders' proposed financing packages to HUD and include a statement justifying its position on the recommended financing. This independent review will allow the best financing alternative to be used for restructuring and will allow lenders to compete on a level playing field.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. The quarrel of the general proponents of these ideas is with the Constitution of the United States and most expressly with the first amendment. The drafters of that amendment did not say that the Congress could attempt to equalize the rights of speech of each individual citizen of the United States. They simply said that political speech was open and could not be restricted in any way by the Congress of the United States. If unlimited or, rather, if the right of some people to communicate more widely than others could be restricted, presumably we could treat as soft money the money spent by the New York Times to editorialize on this issue or that of a television network. Obviously, the editorial director of the New York Times has a stronger voice heard by more people than the average citizen. And so, of course, does a group or a corporation, for that matter, whose rights and money is at risk in debate here in Congress. Those who feel at risk with respect to the policies that we adopt have an absolute right to speak out in that connection. It is a right that the proponents of this bill in general terms don't want to restrict. Few of them, however, have proposed constitutional amendments or limits on free speech in the arts or in literature or with respect to pornography. We are faced with the paradox in this debate that the proponents think the only kind of speech that ought to be limited is political speech, the kind of speech the first amendment drafters had in mind when they wrote the first amendment. In a narrow phase of this bill as it appears before the Senate, the only evil organizations whose activities are to be controlled or whose contributions are to be not limited or banned of a certain kind are the two major political parties and their organizations. This bill at this time has no limitation on the contribution of soft money to other organizations that have political agendas. It cannot constitutionally limit issue advocacy. It can't even limit individual express advocacy as long as that advocacy is disclosed. I suppose I find it most paradoxical the proposition that we base these controls on corruption or the appearance of corruption when the appearance of corruption is primarily created by those who want these limitations. Presumably, whenever they say that a particular act carries with it the appearance of corruption, that means it is the case and that the limits they propose on political speech are, therefore, valid. That simply is not the case. Political controversy in the United States from the time of the first Congress in 1789 and the passage of the first amendment has often been disorderly; it has involved a number of outrageous charges as well as careful political thought; it has benefited those who want to put the greatest amount of time and money and effort and press into expressing their ideas. It has not been regulated by the Congress of the United States and somehow or another we have been successful. The idea that cynicism or opting out of the political process is going to be improved by passing laws is a triumph of hope over experience. It hasn't happened in connection with any such law here or in any other State at any time in the past. We have gotten this far in the history of the United States with its most successful free government by prohibiting the control of political speech on the part of the Government of the United States. We will survive the next 200 years far better without any such prohibitions than if we grant them. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That is our command. This is an attempt to cause such an abridgement.

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Washington is speaking on the same side as the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. GORTON. I yield.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we start from the most fundamental of all propositions, the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That amendment reads as it affects this debate, ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press''-- ``no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.'' The Supreme Court of the United States quite properly has determined that meaningful freedom of speech requires the expenditure of money and has been loathe to accept any restrictions upon the use of money to broadcast one's ideas about political propositions in the United States. At least several speeches that I have heard during the course of the day--most notably earlier this afternoon by the junior Senator from California--quarreled with that fundamental proposition in the first amendment. About 30 of the Members of this body a year or so ago were courageous enough to vote for a constitutional amendment that would have limited first amendment rights. They were wrong, in my view, but they were highly principled to do so. Any meaningful limitation on political speech, in the view of this Senator, will require an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. These unproven allegations. Does the Senator from Kentucky agree that these are separate but highly related and relevant questions?

Mr. GORTON. A second question: There is a second accusation on another portion of the web site: The part that ``This `Pork Delight' took the form of the 1999 emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Special interest unlimited campaign contributions were a key ingredient in the pork stew that is choking the American people.'' One of those is, ``An exemption for the Crown Jewel mine in Washington State to deposit mining waste on additional land surrounding the mine, even though other mines were denied similar permission.'' First, I ask the Senator from Kentucky, I don't see any appropriations or any use of the taxpayers' money in that connection. I have checked with the mining company in question that tells me they have never made a soft money contribution to any party or any group whatsoever. I have letters from the county commissioners of the county in question praising this action--in fact, from a labor union that is usually not a supporter of the Senator from Washington on the same account--because this is one of the most poverty-stricken counties in the State of Washington, the Federal Government having closed almost all the timber harvests on public lands, other organizations having bought up other timberlands to prevent their harvest, and the administration being in the process of cutting off irrigation water to farmers. After 7 years of study and $80 million in complying with every single environmental law in the State of Washington, or for that matter the Federal Government, this company was denied its permit after a 100- year policy by a single bureaucrat. I ask the Senator from Kentucky, in the absence of an answer from the Senator from Arizona, isn't this what we are supposed to do, represent our constituents? What soft money contribution could possibly have influenced this? One may certainly disagree with the policy.

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GORTON. To the best of my knowledge, I say to the Senator from Kentucky, I am reading from a web site of the Senator from Arizona, which includes the sentence that says, and I quote, ``Pork barrel spending is a direct result of unlimited contributions from special interests.'' In this particular list, entitled ``The List Goes On and On,'' the very first example is a $1.3 million earmark for the World Trade Organization ministerial meeting to be held in Seattle, WA. Just what pork barrel spending is and just how that spending is a result of unlimited contributions from special interests is a matter that the Senator from Washington fails totally and completely to understand. I say to the Senator from Kentucky that the appropriation was the result of a request made by the U.S. Trade Representative in what I believe is a Democratic administration to the two Senators from Washington for assistance in financing a governmental operation--a U.S. governmental operation--the U.S. Trade Representative's participation in that World Trade Organization meeting to be held in Seattle. I ask the Senator from Kentucky, since the Senator from Arizona has refused to answer these questions of him, or similar questions from the Senator from Utah, how in the world can an appropriation to a unit of the U.S. Government to conduct trade negotiations be either pork barrel spending or the result of unlimited contributions from special interests? Can the Senator from Kentucky enlighten me on an answer to that question?

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Arizona said he wants to get back to the issues involved. I assume the Senator from Kentucky would agree with me that reasonable Members can differ on questions of high public policy, on the way in which we finance political campaigns, on how the Constitution of the United States with its unequivocal demand that Congress shall pass no law respecting the freedom of speech should be interpreted; that all of these are appropriate matters for debate, but that they are far better debated upon the merits, and, in general, accusations of a corrupt system, and rather specific examples pointed at individual Members without the slightest degree of proof, without evidence at all that they were related in any respect whatsoever to this matter--that these are separate questions but they are related questions when the proposition----

Mr. GORTON. I pose a question to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. GORTON. Should result from--

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Kentucky is correct. There are quotations from Senator McCain's web site. There are two that I thought particularly bizarre coming from one of my closest friends in the Senate. The first of those two is----

Mr. GORTON. I ask the Senator from Kentucky to yield for a question.

Mr. GORTON. In the web site to which the Senator from Kentucky has referred, there is the statement by the primary sponsor of this bill that ``pork barrel spending is a direct result of unlimited contributions from special interests.'' The first example in the----